Wrongheaded - the campaign against compulsion!

[StopHeadway]

http://wrongheaded.org.uk/

Please take a moment to have a look at this. If you are sympathetic, a few minutes of your time in the "how you can help" page will be immensely valuable!

Please also feel free to circulate this as widely as possible.

The NI Assembly committee will look at the proposed helmet law on March 10th, and the petition/submission deadline is March 14th.

Thanks!

[Vorpal]

Thanks to the folks working on this.

I like the web site. I will pick on the following, though...

Helmet legislation makes no sense. It is a public health hazard which must be opposed!

Just to be pedantic, helmet legislation itself is not a hazard. The public health hazard is the obesity, etc. that arise from a sedentary life-style. I think it kind of detracts from the scientific tone taken by the rest of the site.

[Steady rider]

in case this is any help

In 2008 Curnow, concluded “Compulsion to wear a bicycle helmet is detrimental to
public health in Australia but, to maintain the status quo,
authorities have obfuscated evidence that shows this.”

also he stated
"Cycling declined after the helmet laws by an estimated
40% for children, with loss of the benefits of the exercise
for health. As serious casualties declined by less, the risks to
cyclists, including death by head injury, increased."

Curnow WJ, Bicycle helmets and public health in Australia, Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 2008 Apr. 19 (1):10-15

some info at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18481926

PS
table 2 may be useful http://www.cycle-helmets.com/hpja_2005_1_robinson.pdf

[StopHeadway]

Thanks to the folks working on this.

I like the web site. I will pick on the following, though...

Thanks, I've reworded this section. I'm quite open to suggestions on all of this.

Have you signed the petition yet?

[beetroot]

Hmmph. I don't see the link between inactivity and wearing cycling helmets. How is the fact that there are health issues arising from a sedentary lifesytle either an arguement for or against wearing cycle helmets? The two would seem unrelated. In some circumstances wearing a helmet could prevent serious injury, whether this is justification to make wearing a helmet compulsory is debatable. The fact that there has been few injuries in NI would seem to indicate it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Personally I would always wear a helmet because I treasure my head, even though at times particularly in hot weather there may be some slight discomfort from so doing

[StopHeadway]

Well, you're in luck - there's a whole brand new website discussing this!

It even has references if you want to read a little deeper, which I would fully recommend.

The link's in the first post.

[beetroot]

Are there any countries where wearing a cycle helmet is compulsory? If so do these countries have a worse health record than those where there isn't compulsion?

[Steady rider]

Some info to consider

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=303664

http://www.cla.asn.au/Article/081125Bik ... Policy.pdf

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf

PS http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/obesity.htm

[Mike Sales]

Are there any countries where wearing a cycle helmet is compulsory? If so do these countries have a worse health record than those where there isn't compulsion?

All the countries where helmets are compulsory (if only in some states) have a much worse rate of death for cyclists. If you wish to inform yourself on the question I recommend http://www.cyclehelmets.org. Helmet compulsion is a product of dangerous roads and possibly a substitute for effective action. Compulsion has not reduced death rates in eg Australia to the British rate, still less to the Dutch rate. In fact it has not reduced the Australian, New Zealand or USA death rate at all.

Hmmph. I don't see the link between inactivity and wearing cycling helmets. How is the fact that there are health issues arising from a sedentary lifesytle either an arguement for or against wearing cycle helmets? The two would seem unrelated. In some circumstances wearing a helmet could prevent serious injury, whether this is justification to make waering a helmet compulsory is debatable. The fact that there has been few injuries in NI would seem to indicate it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Personally I would always wear a helmet because I treasure my head, even though at times particularly in hot weather there may be some slight discomfort from so doing

In the above countries helmet compulsion has reduced the number of cyclists, especially amongst the young. Children love cycling, and deterring this enjoyable exercise must be a bad idea. The rate of cyclist head injury in NZ is high.

[beetroot]

I'm not saying that I agree with compulsion I don't. It should be a personal choice.

I'm unsure whether the evidence you provide proves a statistical link or whether there are other factors at play. For e.g. it's true to say western societies are generally becoming more sedentary, and that this is a long term trend. Falling cycling participation rates and increased sedentary lifestyles could be due to increased traffic, parents becoming paranoid about their childrens' safety and driving them to school, or the advent of computer games. I think in order to draw definitive conclusions more research is required eliminating all other factors, and comparative studies across time and countries.

If you are correct that wearing helmets reduces cycling participation rates and increases sedentary lifestyles the logical conclusion should be to ban wearing cycling helmets as this should increase cyclying and lead to a healthier population.

I think there are more arguements to bring in your campaign and you should broaden your case by building a broader case rather than relying so heavily on the "link" between cycling participation and helmet wearing.

[Mike Sales]

I think in order to draw definitive conclusions more research is required eliminating all other factors, and comparative studies across time and countries.

Have you read what is already available?

I think there are more arguements to bring in your campaign and you should broaden your case by building a broader case rather than relying so heavily on the "link" between cycling participation and helmet wearing.

The case does not rely heavily on compulsion deterring cycling, but this is a good argument in my view.

[Ron]

If you are correct that wearing helmets reduces cycling participation rates and increases sedentary lifestyles the logical conclusion should be to ban wearing cycling helmets as this should increase cyclying and lead to a healthier population.

I don't think anyone has claimed that wearing helmets reduces participation in cycling. What has been claimed, following examination of statistics in countries where helmet compulsion has been introduced, is that compulsion has caused a reduction in the numbers of people cycling. If people are not cycling, they are presumably using less active modes of travel, eg car, bus or train.
There has never been any suggestion that a legal ban on helmet wearing would result in an increase in the number of people cycling. The reverse is more likely as some people will not cycle without a helmet.

[hubgearfreak]

Have you read what is already available?

clearly not

[gilesjuk]

Hmmph. I don't see the link between inactivity and wearing cycling helmets.

It's quite simple. Any activity or job where you are required to wear a helmet is then seen as dangerous or risky. Therefore the adults in the family decide that their children can't ride a bicycle as it is too dangerous.

[Vorpal]

Thanks to the folks working on this.

I like the web site. I will pick on the following, though...

Thanks, I've reworded this section. I'm quite open to suggestions on all of this.

Have you signed the petition yet?

Not only did I sign the petition, I linked it, here viewtopic.php?f=41&t=45917&start=90

And wrote me letter.